On this day, let us all be proud of America

quote:

---

Economist and Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes, a distinguished scholar and former top U.S. official, concluded in a paper last year that the U.S. is spending $12.5 billion a month just to run the war.

​

They estimate with all costs added in, including interest on money borrowed to fund it, the total war bill will exceed $3 trillion. Yup, that’s a 3 followed by 12 zeros. It’s like a bailout, except the money is mostly spent on guns.

---

source
SaltWire | Halifax

quote:

---

War is good business, it is a known fact.

---

No it isn't. It is known as the broken window fallacy. It is easy to just make statements but you need to have evidence to back it up.Here are arguments debunking this cliche.
Are Wars Good for the Economy?
#Foldvary’s archive | Progress.org News, Blogs & Insights
Page Not Found – The Future of Freedom Foundation

quote:

---

which was proven that Suddam was going to start manufacturing again, after the embargo was lifted.

---

Please provide citations to show this is true.

quote:

---

dumb logic to me. It's like if you were down to your last 5 bucks, and someone walked up to and said, spend $10, so you can get out of debt.

---

Just because it is dumb to you doesn't make it untrue. Economists of all stripes acknowledge that government spending stimulates the economy. Please show anything by any economist that argues against this.

quote:

---

The only branch of the government that makes money, is the one that sells military surplus.

---

First of all I didn't know we had a military surplus "branch". Second I guess you don't understand what profit is. You don't make money if you sell something for less than you paid for it. You can reduce your total costs but you dont make money if you pay $1 billion for something and then sell it for $1 million.I do not think the sale of military surplus is a very big part of the governments revenue. Maybe you know something I don't if you do please keep us informed of this new business venture the government has.My gist is that it is bad form to just make wild ass comments and assertions without evidence. We will jump all over you if you do.I am looking forward to you presenting evidence to validate your comments and assertion.

The economy is the movement of value between people. Having 3 billion millionaires that don't spend money is not an economy, 1 person spending a buck to buy something from someone else is.This is why the "trickle-down" theory is false, and why it resulted in the failure of the economy ... from the bottom up.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

MV=PQsuch thatM = money supplyV = velocity (number of times average dollar is spent)P = price levelQ = physical volume of all goods and serves producedMV = total amount of money spent on purchasesPQ = total amount received by sellers of outputM = money supplyV = velocity (number of times average dollar is spent) Yes indeed Monetarism, which Greenspan rejected and Volker proved to be right as the destroyer of stagflation.The problem with the economy is as simple as V, and as complex as human behavior. The destruction of the economy is as simple as placing all wealth in the super rich, who do little or nothing to help the 'V' in the equation.Of course the dumbasses in Congress (primarily Republican) are incapable of understanding this equation just as they do not understand investments in science, technology, and education are the primary way to increase productivity, the only way to grow an economy other than population growth {abe} in the US {/ABE}(as in immigrants, legal or not).{ABE} I eagerly await any purported disproofs of my 'simplistic' understanding of economics, be it here or any other venue.Edited by anglagard, : clarityEdited by anglagard, : formatEdited by anglagard, : challengeEdited by anglagard, : spelllin'

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Unfortunately, there are economists and other financial advisers who argue by the Treasury View. That is, for every dollar spent by the government, one dollar is removed from private spending. This theory, of course, was debunked by the Great Depression. But like a broken record, they really haven't learned anything and keep proffering it as a reason why the stimulus, or really why any stimulus will fail.

riVeRraT writes: Thanks Theodoric, you saved me time and effort. Please allow me to repeat your important post while the USA suffers recession, maybe Americans will eventually get a clue: source
SaltWire | HalifaxriVeRraT writes: (Sigh, How many times do I have to repeat the following words?). Bush's lies were so unbelievably transparent, it's impossible to believe anyone could have been mislead: Powell knowingly told pre-invasion lies at the the special UN session. He was then openly mocked after the session. OK, once again: Four main lies told BEFORE the invasion. LIE #1. Aluminum centrifuge tubes used for radium enrichment was thoroughly debunked by experts from different departments/agencies BEFORE the invasion; LIE #2. Saddam sought Uranium in Africa; Wilson discovered this forgery/lie BEFORE the invasion; LIE #3. Al-queda - Iraqi link. They were OPPOSED/enemies to each other's philosophy. Never ever a link! None of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi; LIE #4. C. Rice told the lie "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud". Sigh. Nuclear weapon manufacture is a big, big, big operation. It isn't done inside a mobile closet. America has spy satelites that can nearly identify car license plates from space. Plus weapon inspectors conducted spontaneous inspections all over Iraq. There was NO possibility that Saddam was HIDING a nuclear weapon production facility. And there was no way Saddam was gonna acquire a nuclear weapon from the black market when the international community was watching. Lastly, read the mission statement for the Project for the New American Century. Bush's cabinet comprised most of these members. Since 1998 (BEFORE 9/11) they strongly pushed for an Iraqi invasion to secure Iraqi's energy resources and to exert America's lone superpower status. Look it up, their mission statement is an open fact. Indeed, most prior members like William Krystal are still proud of their involvement. Lastly, compare the edited 2002 National Intelligence report given to congress to read. It deliberately omits tentative wording and admitted speculation. The report WAS FALSIFIED.Bush is a filthy lying war criminal who should hang.riVeRraT writes: Oh really, . . . the billions paid to foreign mercenaries, they spend money in our country?riVeRraT writes: Yes, and who could blame Saddam (dear lord, Bush is so terrible I am nearly defending Saddam!!!)? The USA has a long history of illegally invading countries AND using WMD, and weapons of small destruction, and ILLEGAL weapons of destruction based on false information (eg. Gulf of Tonkin). The lesson learned is the only thing weak countries can do for protection is to seek WMD. Fact: Bush has greatly increased the risk of armageddon/terrorism in the world.

---

Cogito, ergo Deus non est

Correct. But these same economist will agree that government spending has a stimulative affect. Maybe grudgingly.This current economic crisis and its causes have thoroughly discredited the Friedman school of thought, but of course they will not go willingly into the night.

I have mixed feelings about that statement. It makes me ask myself, just what is the role of our U.S. government. Recessions caused by the price of gas, and greedy banks giving out loans, as well as the stupid decisions of millions of Americans to take loans when they shouldn't have, IMO should not be made accountable to our government. It's freedom. When you come to America, you have equal opportunity, that includes failure. I totally agree. That's not a very good point. The stimulus package is going to encourage spending money outside of America as well. There is free trade, and hopefully if we spend money in other countries, they will spend money with us. There is also two sides to that statement. Some people actually believe that spending $1 to blow up a bridge in Iraq, will prevent someone from coming over here and blowing one of ours. It may also encourage it at as well. This is an entirely gray area, and nothing can be proven otherwise, so you or I, can not really comment on the effectiveness of spending money either way. Look, when I hear the news, I want the truth. I listen to fox sometimes, and WABC radio here in NY, but in both those stations, I here the ravings of lunatics, just like the liberals. News, should be unbiased, and it's not. I will forever complain about it. If you are biased, then you need to present yourself that way. If you are just reporting events, then you should be unbiased, and stating facts. I wasn't implying that all debt is bad.The people taking the loans, as well as the banks who gave them are both equally responsible.
I do have a problem with needing the government to protect us from ourselves. Where does it start, and where does it end? Lesson learned.I just heard as part of the stimulus, they are going to be giving $250 checks to people on food stamps. Makes wonder just what they will spend the money on. If it will actually make it back into our economy. I hope that the people responsible for the price of oil learned a lesson from all of this. I still feel that was a major contribution in this whole mess. I know it screwd me up royally. There are two sides to that story. The "rich" people that I know and work for, work pretty dam hard, and have the brain to get where they are. I don't know any people who were fed with a "silver spoon" so to speak. I have no problem with them being rich.On the other hand, there are those that literally steal from us, and abuse there power. With money comes power. I don't think that is right either.Then on the poor side, you have genuine people who for whatever reason just do not get that opportunity to make an honest living, they deserve help.Then there are those that are just leeches, and suck off our economy. I work in the city hospitals, and I was exposed to a lot of those kind of people. Section 8 welfare and food stamps can sometimes be a joke. People make a living out of stealing from the government (aka us)Just what is fair, I am not sure. Thanks for taking the time to explain some of it.Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

Where the hell else is it going to go? Are they going to be flying to Monaco to spend it? When the economy is in the crapper, the best way to stimulate it is to get money to the middle and lower classes. Money in the pockets of the rich is counterproductive. Read the previous posts.

If you spent it on drugs, prostitutes, and gambling, then it wouldn't make back into the economy, would it?Just sayin'

Since when are drugs, prostitutes, and gambling not part of the economy. And why is there an assumption that people on food stamps will spend their money on that? Why do you assume they will be more likely to spend it on that than anyone else?Are you saying poor people are moral failures? They are more prone to immorality than people with more money? Open up that thread baby, I'd love to respond with facts and love to hear your anecdotal evidence.I venture to guess people with more disposable income are more likely to spend their money on drugs, prostitutes, and gambling than people that are just trying to find housing and food.But then being poor means your a bad person doesn't it.

Not likely.
A Dark Age of macroeconomics (wonkish) - The New York Times
Time to Bang My Head Against the Wall Some More (Pre-Elementary Monetary Economics Department)This is Eugune Fama's response:
http://www.dimensional.com/...us-plans---addendum-12809.htmlThis is from less than a month ago!A different economic fallacy, but with the same conclusion: stimulus will not work:
EconoSpeak: Ricardian Equivalence Does Not Imply That Obama’s Fiscal Stimulus Will Be IneffectiveYet another bad fallacy:
Another temporary misunderstanding - The New York TimesThese people are not arguing from the Friedman school of economics (which they apparently don't understand either). They are not even arguing rationally. Thinking that they might eventually grudgingly accept that fiscal stimulus will work is probably as realistic as thinking that republicans would use more intelligent arguments than "if we spent a million dollars a day since jesus was born we still wouldn't have spent 800 billion dollars" to counter the pro-stimulus argument.

Since when are they? There was no assumption like that in my post. It was a very simple if-then stated as a question.

quote:

---

If you spent it on drugs, prostitutes, and gambling, then it wouldn't make back into the economy, would it?

---

Why do you assume that I am assuming that?I even put that "just sayin'" in there so you'd know that I was just answering your question and nothing more. From my admittedly limited sample size of people on food stamps (East St. Louis), there's a proportionally higher amount of drugs, prostitutes and gambling. Nope. Morality has nothing to do with it whatsoever. So you can push me into a position and throw stones at me?Do you really enjoy that? It might say something about your character. I suppose that could be. But if I wanted to buy drugs or prostitues, the easiest place for me to find them would be East St. Louis, right on the street. And that's where the people with less disposable income live. That correlation doesn't necessary imply causation though.But it seems that the people who don't use drugs, prositutes, and gambling are the ones who have the more disposable income.So I dunno. But this isn't the thread to work all that out. No. Now you're just being an asshole.

Regarding food stamps, this is what the government allows you to buy (and what it prohibits you from purchasing)
Page or Content Not Found | Food and Nutrition Service

quote:

---

Households CAN use SNAP benefits to buy:
Foods for the household to eat, such as:
-- breads and cereals
-- fruits and vegetables
-- meats, fish and poultry; and
-- dairy products
Seeds and plants which produce food for the household to eat.

​

Households CANNOT use SNAP benefits to buy:
Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco
Any nonfood items, such as:
-- pet foods;
-- soaps, paper products; and
-- household supplies.
Vitamins and medicines.
Food that will be eaten in the store.
Hot foods

---

SNAP is essentially the new name for food stamps. Apparently the agency changed its name in october.The next faq has some interesting information as to how they limit fraud. Guess what? Unless you're an authorized retailer, you can't accept SNAP coupons or cards. Hm.Why are food stamps so effective? Well, the money basically has to be spent, and it has to be spent on food. And while the food bought might not be grown in the US, it helps pay the wages and salaries of the store. It helps pay the wages of the farm owner and the field laborers (and if this is outside of the US, trade is a key part of their economic health, and if that laborer is getting paid he or she is less likely to try and immigrate to the US perhaps). It pays the wages and salaries of the people involved in shipping and processing the food. All those people then spend the money themselves (the velocity of money then rises, which helps the economy).From a different view, it also means one less family is going to starve (even if they still might be quite hungry), which helps improve social cohesion and stability. Socially stable places are more attractive to invest in. And as pointed out clearly here (The eschatology of lost decades - The New York Times) it will likely have to be investment that pulls us out of this recession, as we can't rely on exports or increased consumer spending. But the investment has to be real.

Riverrat said that people on food stamps will receive a $250 check. I don't even know if that is true or not, but if so, would that money even have to be spent on food?Funny thing about foodstamps, I've had people offer to sell me their food stamps before so they could have cash to spend on other stuff. Nowadays, though, everything is done with the LINK card.

You can deny it all you want, but you imply a causation. Crime and poverty are very complex subjects. One thing that seems to escape your ability to conceive is what causes crime by poor people.People with the disposable incomes are the best customers of the drug dealers, prostitutes and Gambling dens. If I wanted to make money I certainly wouldn't market to poor people. I venture to guess plenty of people from wealth areas of St Louis, make it to East St Louis to buy drugs and prostitutes. I was in the Soulard and St Charles last week and there was plenty of drugs there.As for the whole economy bit, I still don't understand your reasoning. Economy - The system or range of economic activity in a country, region, or community:or try this- The economy is the realized social system of production, exchange, distribution, and consumption of goods and services of a country or other area. A given economy is the end result of a process that involves its technological evolution, civilization's history and social organization, as well as its geography, natural resource endowment, and ecology, among other factors.Maybe these endeavors do not pay taxes, but the obviously contribute to the economy Ther is no other way to read what you said.